Syrus v. McAfee and Taft Law Firm et al

Filing 9

ORDER dismissing 1 Complaint with prejudice to refiling. Signed by Chief Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti on 3/10/2025. (jee)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CHARLES A. SYRUS, JR.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
MCAFEE & TAFT LAW FIRM, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. CIV-25-196-D

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Charles A. Syrus Jr.’s complaint [Doc. No. 1]. Upon
review, the complaint appears to be an effort by Plaintiff to circumvent the judgements of
this Court. See Syrus v. McAfee, Case No. CIV-23-467 (W.D. Okla. June 14, 2023) (“Syrus
V”); Syrus v. Nat’l Basketball Ass’n, Case No. CIV-22-21-D (W.D. Okla. Jan. 20, 2022)
(“Syrus IV”); Syrus v. Nat’l Basketball Ass’n, Case No. CIV-19-504-D, 2019 WL 11556847
(W.D. Okla. June 6, 2019), aff’d, No. 19-6096, 2019 WL 7938555 (10th Cir. Oct. 25, 2019)
(“Syrus III”); Syrus v. Prof’l Basketball Club, LLC, Case No. CIV-12-678-D, 2012 WL
2995739 (W.D. Okla. July 23, 2012), appeal dismissed, No. 12-6219 (10th Cir. Oct. 11,
2012) (“Syrus II”); Syrus v. Bennett, Case No. CIV-10-1116-D, 2011 WL 1515613 (W.D.
Okla. April 19, 2011), aff’d, 455 F. App’x 806 (10th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct.
2692 (2012) (“Syrus I”).
All of Plaintiff’s complaints are substantially similar. Moreover, in Syrus V, the
Court stated the action “appear[ed] essentially to be a refilling of Syrus IV and [it was
therefore] barred by claim preclusion.” Syrus V, Case No. CIV-23-467 (Doc. No. 9 at p. 2).
1

The same is true here. Plaintiff’s complaint is virtually identical to the complaint
filed in Syrus V. 1
In both Syrus IV and Syrus V, this Court further “advised Plaintiff that he cannot
continue to relitigate his prior cases[.]” Id; Syrus IV, Case No. Civ-22-21 (Doc. No. 6 at 3).
Despite the Court’s admonitions, Plaintiff filed the instant action.
The Court notes that, in addition to the conduct already described, the Tenth Circuit
has stated that one of Plaintiff’s complaints consists entirely of “nonsensical” and
“incomprehensible Claims.” Syrus, No. 19-6096, 2019 WL 7938555, at *3 (10th Cir. Oct.
25, 2019). In this way, each of Plaintiff’s complaints is substantially alike. To the extent
the Court can make out factual allegations, the underlying conduct began over a decade
ago. See id. Moreover, it would not be unreasonable to construe Plaintiff’s instant
complaint as an effort to obtain a different judge in light of dissatisfaction with previous
outcomes. See Syrus V, Case No. CIV-23-467 (June 27, 2023) (Doc. No. 12) (denying
Plaintiff’s post-dismissal Motion to Request a New Judge); see also [Doc. No. 5] (showing
the instant action was initially assigned to Judge Wyrick).
Like Plaintiff’s last pleading in Syrus V, the Complaint here is largely unintelligible
and does not come close to satisfying the federal pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.
8. The Court finds that the Complaint fails to state a plausible claim against any named
Defendant. Thus, Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to dismissal. 2 The Court further finds that

In addition to asserting nearly identical claims, in both cases, Plaintiff attached over 1500
pages of the same exhibits.
2
Plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed in this case without paying fees and costs
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. “A district court may dismiss [sua sponte] under § 1915 for failure
1

2

allowing Plaintiff an opportunity to amend would be futile.
Lastly, the Court notes that, should Plaintiff continue to ignore the Court’s
admonitions about relitigating previous actions, it may become necessary to subject
Plaintiff to sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 to restrict future filings as appropriate.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE to refiling. A separate judgment of dismissal shall be entered.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day March 2025.

. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge

to state a claim if ‘it is patently obvious that the plaintiff could not prevail on the facts
alleged, and allowing him an opportunity to amend his complaint would be futile.’” Trujillo
v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210, 1224 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106,
1110 (10th Cir. 1991)).
3